1. The Defendants jointly share the Plaintiff with KRW 104,166 per month from March 8, 2016 to August 10, 2018, and from the following day.

1. On July 27, 2010, Defendant C entered into a contract to lease the instant building (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with D, who was the owner of the instant building at the time of the instant building, with a fixed date on August 18, 2010, setting the lease deposit of KRW 75 million, and the term of lease from August 11, 2010 to August 10, 2012.

After all, the above lease contract was implicitly renewed on August 11, 2012 and August 11, 2014 on two occasions.

On the other hand, as of August 16, 2010, the registration of creation of a collateral security in order to make the mortgagee E or the maximum debt amount 65 million won as of August 16, 2010 was completed, but the above E applied for voluntary auction and rendered a decision to commence voluntary auction on May 27, 2015.

Defendant C made a move-in report to the location of the instant building on March 9, 2015, and received a distribution of KRW 25 million as a small lessee on March 8, 2016, by making a demand for distribution in the said voluntary auction procedure.

In the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff acquired ownership on February 12, 2016 after receiving a successful bid for the instant building.

On the other hand, Defendant B was the spouse of Defendant C, and filed a move-in report with G and three children on August 11, 2010 to the location of the instant building, and thereafter occupied the instant building until now.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The defendants alleged by the plaintiff have no opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and thus are not entitled to possess the building of this case.

Therefore, the Defendants should deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.

B. On August 11, 2010, Defendant C also acquired opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, which was the part of Defendant C’s assertion, to the location of the instant building.

After that, the Plaintiff owned the building of this case.